Now that 4e is out, are you into it or sticking with a prior edition?

[That One Guy]

I think 2e had a lot of holdouts. I remember my girlfriend and her group calling 3e, "For stupid people who can't do math." Fortunately, I converted her and most of that group over time. It does make me think of the way people find a thing that rubs them the wrong way and completely writes off 4e. I'm inclined to think that people violate the wizard's first rule a lot.

The only thing that bothers me about 4e would be all the errata. Oh my gosh, it burns. I know, I know, house rules... but oh man.

 

[Mercurius]

Some interesting results. First, less than 57% (through 154 votes) are switching to 4e. That seems relatively small, and probably smaller than Wizards would like. Now given that EN World isn't entirely exemplary of the entire gaming populace--it has a lower percentage of "casual gamers"--we could probably bump that number up a bit. But maybe not? And isn't there less of an exodus this time around than last time? I mean on one hand, 4e is selling extremely well by all accounts, on the other it seems there is a lot of resistance to it, a lot of "meh." So it may be that while a lot of folks are BUYING it, less people will switch to PLAYING it.

I don't know where this figure came from as there is no citation, but according to Wikipedia "There are an estimated 5.5 million regular players of all editions of D&D, with the majority of those players (roughly 4 million) playing the most recent edition." If 4 of 5.5 million play 3.x, which is 73%. We could have that a range and say that between 65-80% of all D&D players play(ed) 3e. It will be interesting to see if that percentage drops for 4e, perhaps partially because of the success of 3.x.

It is also interesting to note just how many folks have been "Left Behind" with previous editions (I know, I know--it is a conscious choice, but I just wanted to use "Left Behind" ). To some degree I think people just get comfortable with a system, or perhaps after a hiatus from gaming and/or D&D, want to return to their old books because of nostalgia.

 

[Mercurius]

I will also add that I think it is an over-simplification to call 4e a "money grab." Certainly, any business has a bottom line of making money, but the good thing about a company like Wizards of the Coast is that it is largely run by fans of the game. So if the powers-that-be (Hasbro) want the Wizards to make some dough by designing a new edition, it is not like it is lawyers and clerks in charge. It is gamers, and uber-gamers at that (people that really love the game).

So yeah, a money grab, but also an authentic heart-felt desire to make the game better.

 

[Ahglock]

Do you plan to keep some elements of 3e while incorporating 4e into your game, or do you feel that your switch will be a complete one?

I am not sure. There are enough similarities in the core systems that I probably could bring stuff either direction with little difficulty. But, I think I will just make a total change at the end of a campaign once they supply enough basic fantasy concepts for my players.

 

[Ahglock]

Some interesting results. First, less than 57% (through 154 votes) are switching to 4e. That seems relatively small, and probably smaller than Wizards would like. Now given that EN World isn't entirely exemplary of the entire gaming populace--it has a lower percentage of "casual gamers"--we could probably bump that number up a bit. But maybe not? And isn't there less of an exodus this time around than last time? I mean on one hand, 4e is selling extremely well by all accounts, on the other it seems there is a lot of resistance to it, a lot of "meh." So it may be that while a lot of folks are BUYING it, less people will switch to PLAYING it.

I don't know where this figure came from as there is no citation, but according to Wikipedia "There are an estimated 5.5 million regular players of all editions of D&D, with the majority of those players (roughly 4 million) playing the most recent edition." If 4 of 5.5 million play 3.x, which is 73%. We could have that a range and say that between 65-80% of all D&D players play(ed) 3e. It will be interesting to see if that percentage drops for 4e, perhaps partially because of the success of 3.x.

It is also interesting to note just how many folks have been "Left Behind" with previous editions (I know, I know--it is a conscious choice, but I just wanted to use "Left Behind" ). To some degree I think people just get comfortable with a system, or perhaps after a hiatus from gaming and/or D&D, want to return to their old books because of nostalgia.

I would say it seems low given that ENworld seems like a fairly pro-4e site. Though, i suspect like most edition changes as time goes by more and more people make the change.

 

[DaveMage]

I will also add that I think it is an over-simplification to call 4e a "money grab." Certainly, any business has a bottom line of making money, but the good thing about a company like Wizards of the Coast is that it is largely run by fans of the game. So if the powers-that-be (Hasbro) want the Wizards to make some dough by designing a new edition, it is not like it is lawyers and clerks in charge. It is gamers, and uber-gamers at that (people that really love the game).

So yeah, a money grab, but also an authentic heart-felt desire to make the game better.

The problem is (potentially) that a great game gets screwed over by the business side. I imagine it works something like this: the designers (department "A") are told to make a great game, and they do. Then department "B" steps in and decides how to brand/present this product. The problem is, department "B" doesn't care what's best for playing the game, they just care what's best for the bottom line (it is their job, after all), so what you may have gotten in 4E is (seemingly) a game that's well-designed, but rolled out in a way to maximize profits (a core book set each year, stuff only released on the soon-to-be-pay-to-view DDI) rather than provide the best (or at least, most complete) play experience right out of the gate.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

The problem is (potentially) that a great game gets screwed over by the business side. I imagine it works something like this: the designers (department "A") are told to make a great game, and they do. Then department "B" steps in and decides how to brand/present this product. The problem is, department "B" doesn't care what's best for playing the game, they just care what's best for the bottom line (it is their job, after all), so what you may have gotten in 4E is (seemingly) a game that's well-designed, but rolled out in a way to maximize profits (a core book set each year, stuff only released on the soon-to-be-pay-to-view DDI) rather than provide the best (or at least, most complete) play experience right out of the gate.

I have nothing to add other than the remarkable fact that, for the first time I can recall, I actually agree with everything Dave the Mage just said.

Love, gentlemen, is in the air.

Wis

 

[Erik Mona]

I look forward to testing out the new rules and will be joining a 4e campaign in two weeks to do so. It's going to take an awful lot of convincing, though, because from what I've seen 4e is not a game that is aimed at me and it doesn't offer the sort of experience I'm looking for.

For my own campaigns and just about everything else, I'm going to be using Pathfinder.

--Erik

 

[Dragonblade]

For my own campaigns and just about everything else, I'm going to be using Pathfinder.

--Erik

Like that was ever in doubt!

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

For a while, and when 3e covered the things I wanted I went to 3e. And I'm sticking with 3e for a while and then moving to 4e when it covers the things I want.

That's pretty much where I'm at. I'd be happy to play in a 4E game if the opportunity arose, but right now the rules set is not robust enough to cover what I've come to expect for running a D&D campaign. I'll reevaluate the situation when the Mark II core books come out.